Will Bush, Kerry Inspire Youth?

OTHER VIEWS - NEW VOICES - A FORUM FOR READERS UNDER 30

August 31, 2004|By Cameron Williams

Were it not for John F. Kennedy, there might never have been a President Bill Clinton or a presidential candidate named John Kerry. It is difficult to imagine either entering public service without Kennedy's influence on their young lives. That a president who served for less than three years and died more than four decades ago continues to affect American politics is more than a testament to that president's oratorical brilliance. It is evidence of a great failure of presidents since Kennedy to inspire Americans, particularly young people.

Don't get me wrong, Ronald Reagan continues to inspire young Republicans, but his brand of conservatism rose in a vacuum of appealing alternatives. The assassinations of the Democrats' greatest leaders in the 1960s and the Vietnam War sapped liberal politics of its vitality, and Reagan used his confidence and charisma to raise a youthful conservative movement from the ashes.

Not only does George W. Bush lack Reagan's ability to inspire a majority of Americans, but I think Kennedy's vision of a government that helps people and leads the charge toward the future is more inspirational to most people, especially young people, than Reagan's ethos that government is somehow bad. Even President Bush's current health and education policies are variants of Kennedy, not Reagan.

But back to my point: There is a great hunger in America for inspired leadership. Young people in particular want to believe in their president in this terrifying new world. But according to recent poll numbers, 18-to-25 year olds favor Kerry to Bush by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio. There is a palpable feeling that Bush has failed to pull us together and lead us. Kerry is the alternative, but it is uncertain how many young people will really be motivated to vote. This is Kerry's fault for not better engaging young people, but also the media's fault for doing nothing to encourage the youth vote.

In the media, young people are alternately ignored and patronized. Rather than encourage voting by talking to young people about the issues, the media focus on half-baked efforts by celebrities to increase the young vote. The rap star P.Diddy, for example, has won the media's attention for strutting around in a T-shirt with the phrase "Vote Or Die" emblazoned across it. With all respect to P.Diddy, few young people will be moved to vote by his decision to momentarily peddle the electoral process instead of designer clothing or fancy automobiles.

Conventional wisdom is that college-age voters find politics irrelevant and prioritize it far beneath pop culture. So political strategists inject politics into pop culture. Bill Clinton's saxophone performance on Arsenio remains the ultimate example (although the stunt probably won more baby boomer votes -- I know few 20-somethings who are impressed by rock saxophone). Ubiquitous MTV interviews with questions about underwear preference and favorite movies followed.

After 9-11, I hoped this frivolous pandering would come to an end. You can talk to young people about many issues, such as terrorism, war, the environment, education and the future of Socal Security and health care, to name a few. Those young people who are oblivious to the importance of politics in their own lives must be deliberately convinced otherwise by skilled and tireless candidates. The future of American democracy demands that we not disengage these voters any longer.

For starters, Bush and Kerry mustn't insult the young's intelligence.

The Bush campaign's most visible attempt to engage young voters, an essay contest called "Stand Up and Holla," with the winner getting to speak at the Republican convention, is not encouraging. Even if Republicans are forgiven for the name, an idiotic mix of street slang and retail politics, they should not be forgiven for their choice of subject matter: "How President Bush's call to service resonates in young people's lives." First, Bush has done little to inspire service from most young people, and the contest's assertion to the contrary is akin to a tiresome bore assuring others that he is hilarious. Second, such an obscure and uncontroversial subject matter during this period of turmoil is evidence that President Bush isn't interested in young people's opinions on serious issues.

John F. Kennedy didn't tell people that he was inspirational. He actually inspired them, young and old alike, with words that are still relevant in the 21st century:

"Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle."

We are overdue for a president who closes divisions within America and throughout the world, and who can persuade young people to join in this cause. John Kerry has two tests. One is to win the election, and the second is to be the strong and inspiring leader these times demand. For Kerry to pass them, he must disregard the cynical artifice of modern politics. Kerry must remember how he felt as a 17-year-old watching Kennedy give his inaugural address, and he must remember why Kennedy so inspired him. Kerry must speak and act as if he has a personal responsibility to inspire America's next generation of leaders. The times call for nothing less.

As for Bush, he can belatedly push for the support of young people, or he can ignore them.